kavanaugh

[Jim in CT]

Al Sharpton lies about accusing white cops of raping Tawanna Brawley. Many people claimed the Duke lacrosse players were guilty of rape. Rolling Stone magazine fabricated charges against a UVA student.

Now just because others have lied, doesn’t mean Ford is lying, she has nothing to do with these cases. But because people are sometimes willing to fabricatebthese charges, that must mean that unsubstantiated allegations aren’t enough. we need more before we ruin a mans life.

How can anyone disagree?

[spence]

That's the messy thing about sexual assault, women don't feel they'll be believed so they don't speak up, there often isn't much evidence etc...and times are a lot different now then they were back then.

This is really turning into a lose lose for Trump. Either a few senators get spooked and the nomination doesn't pass or they "plow on ahead" and have to the bear the consequences of steamrolling a woman making a very serious allegation.

This entire nomination was doomed from the start.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

That's the messy thing about sexual assault, women don't feel they'll be believed so they don't speak up, there often isn't much evidence etc...and times are a lot different now then they were back then.

This is really turning into a lose lose for Trump. Either a few senators get spooked and the nomination doesn't pass or they "plow on ahead" and have to the bear the consequences of steamrolling a woman making a very serious allegation.

This entire nomination was doomed from the start.

5 pinocchios

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Al Sharpton lies about accusing white cops of raping Tawanna Brawley. Many people claimed the Duke lacrosse players were guilty of rape. Rolling Stone magazine fabricated charges against a UVA student.

Now just because others have lied, doesn’t mean Ford is lying, she has nothing to do with these cases. But because people are sometimes willing to fabricatebthese charges, that must mean that unsubstantiated allegations aren’t enough. we need more before we ruin a mans life.

How can anyone disagree?

You're right. Thats why they're pushing to research the allegations to either substantiate or drop them.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

That's the messy thing about sexual assault, women don't feel they'll be believed so they don't speak up, there often isn't much evidence etc...and times are a lot different now then they were back then.

This is really turning into a lose lose for Trump. Either a few senators get spooked and the nomination doesn't pass or they "plow on ahead" and have to the bear the consequences of steamrolling a woman making a very serious allegation.

This entire nomination was doomed from the start.

That's also the thing about the constitution and our principles of justice, they apply to everyone, even those accused of sexual assault. I agree that standards of proof make it harder for sexual assault victims to get justice because of the pressure to keep quite. The solution isn't to lower the bar on when we decide someone is guilty, the solution is to encourage them to come forward immediately.

"This is really turning into a lose lose for Trump"

So was everything else that was supposed to doom him. It's not a lose if it fires up the conservative base more than it fires up the liberal base, especially in the swing states. That's the potential downside. We will soon know.

"bear the consequences of steamrolling a woman making a very serious allegation"

The other possibility, is that voters see this for what it was, political exploitation by parasites on the left, at the expense of w woman making a serious accusation.

I would like to see ten FBI agents look into it for a week. If they turn up supporting evidence, I don't want him there. If they turn up zilch as the 6 background checks have done, have the vote and let the snowflakes throw their tantrum. If they turn up evidence and he gets forced out, still time to get someone else in there.

You're right, anything short of a full FBI investigation, and the left will say that the GOP wasn't interested in learning the truth. Not that they'd abide by the results of such an investigation if they didn't like the outcome, ask Anita Hill, wait you can't, she's on NBC telling them what it's like to be a victim, even though the FBI found zero evidence of that.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

That's the messy thing about sexual assault, women don't feel they'll be believed so they don't speak up, there often isn't much evidence etc...and times are a lot different now then they were back then.

This is really turning into a lose lose for Trump. Either a few senators get spooked and the nomination doesn't pass or they "plow on ahead" and have to the bear the consequences of steamrolling a woman making a very serious allegation.

This entire nomination was doomed from the start.

And yet, you’re OK with that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[DZ]

Depending on what happens when they speak on Thursday. Take a vote - if he gets in then run the investigation. If he's lying deal with the consequences later. If he's not lying and she is, then let the left deal with their consequences. Right now he's presumed innocent.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"bear the consequences of steamrolling a woman making a very serious allegation"



You're right, anything short of a full FBI investigation, and the left will say that the GOP wasn't interested in learning the truth. Not that they'd abide by the results of such an investigation if they didn't like the outcome, ask Anita Hill, wait you can't, she's on NBC telling them what it's like to be a victim, even though the FBI found zero evidence of that.

Jim, it's not just the left as you call anyone that does not agree with you.
But there is evidence about Thomas that nobody ever bothered with, including Joe Biden.
Just like now, and remember some of the Senators are the same 37 years later, they didn't and don't really want to know.
https://www.rollcall.com/news/opinio...homas-hearings
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ce-thomas.html
https://www.damemagazine.com/2018/09...ughs-template/

[Jim in CT]

Spence, it’s also not a loss for Trump if the nomination gets withdrawn, and he nominated that female devout catholic ( Barrett or Jarrett?). the liberals should have asked themselves if having Kavanaugh on the court is the worst possible outcome for them. I’d think a brilliant, strong woman who is a rabid catholic, would be far less preferable, compared to Kavanaugh. if nothing else, Kavanaugh is an easier target, being a man. There is no way, none, that this seat isn’t filled before the new congress is sworn in. If the dems take the senate, Trump will do it in the lame duck session, and he won’t bat an eye.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by DZ

Depending on what happens when they speak on Thursday. Take a vote - if he gets in then run the investigation. If he's lying deal with the consequences later. If he's not lying and she is, then let the left deal with their consequences. Right now he's presumed innocent.

What is the rush to vote? Why not wait. So you think they should vote w/o examining what the 2 say and then if he gets voted in and somehow evidence comes out that he lied vote him out? And all of this bc the vote has to be rushed?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What is the rush to vote? Why not wait. So you think they should vote w/o examining what the 2 say and then if he gets voted in and somehow evidence comes out that he lied vote him? And all of this bc the vote has to be rushed?

it's not a rushed vote...

they had the hearings...

time to vote because evil democrats are perverting the system...

democrats have been colluding, conniving and plotting and causing mayhem....screw them

whack-a-mole is much more fun with a shotgun

[Pete F.]

What defines someone as a RABID catholic?
Is she a Roman, Armenian, Byzantine, Coptic, Ethiopian, East Syriac (Chaldean), West Syriac, and Maronite Catholic?
Is there a new church of Rabid radical extremist catholics?
Abortions should be off limits but boys are......

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What defines someone as a RABID catholic?

....

try google

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

try google

Now i'm really worried

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

And yet, you’re OK with that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm ok with credible people being heard...yes.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, it’s also not a loss for Trump if the nomination gets withdrawn, and he nominated that female devout catholic ( Barrett or Jarrett?). the liberals should have asked themselves if having Kavanaugh on the court is the worst possible outcome for them. I’d think a brilliant, strong woman who is a rabid catholic, would be far less preferable, compared to Kavanaugh. if nothing else, Kavanaugh is an easier target, being a man. There is no way, none, that this seat isn’t filled before the new congress is sworn in. If the dems take the senate, Trump will do it in the lame duck session, and he won’t bat an eye.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There's a risk of senate opposition by any candidate that could be considered extreme. Not just the women, Flake is possibly running in 2020 and is looking for his moment to step up.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What defines someone as a RABID catholic?
Is she a Roman, Armenian, Byzantine, Coptic, Ethiopian, East Syriac (Chaldean), West Syriac, and Maronite Catholic?
Is there a new church of Rabid radical extremist catholics?
Abortions should be off limits but boys are......

Devout, not casual. it’s a common term.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Now i'm really worried

images of Nancy Pelosi will do that to a man

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

images of Nancy Pelosi will do that to a man

I thought you were the guy taking one for the team

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

There's a risk of senate opposition by any candidate that could be considered extreme. Not just the women, Flake is possibly running in 2020 and is looking for his moment to step up.

in what world does Flake opposing Kavanaugh, help him get the GOP nomination?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

...and times are a lot different now then they were back then.

Yes. Expecting past actions, done at a time when they were not as horrific, to be accounted for in a later time when they are makes it difficult to own a past. Not to mention how unjust it is to request retribution in a more vengeful time.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I thought you were the guy taking one for the team

hold my beer

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

in what world does Flake opposing Kavanaugh, help him get the GOP nomination?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Elevates his brand and would possibly help him with some demographics. He also might just think it's the right thing to do...

Kav has deepening public trust issues. I'd think trustworthiness in SCOTUS nominee is a key factor.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm ok with credible people being heard...yes.

To bad that isn’t what you said.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Elevates his brand and would possibly help him with some demographics. He also might just think it's the right thing to do...

Kav has deepening public trust issues. I'd think trustworthiness in SCOTUS nominee is a key factor.

even fox news polls say kavanaugh has public trust issues. lucky for him that he’s not running for office. if nothing substantial comes out that we don’t already know, i am very confident he gets confirmed. i can’t believe you feel otherwise. mitch mcconnell is nobody’s idea of a conservative warrior, but even he’s fired up. it’s going to take more to derail him i think. could come down to pence breaking a tie with one defector. mcconnell is saying very explicitly that his vote will be soon, he has no reason to say that if he doesn’t have the votes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Elevates his brand (or prove what a #^&#^&#^&#^& he is) and would possibly help him with some demographics (with like minded #^&#^&#^&#^&s . . .or would possibly hurt him with Trumpians). He also might just think it's the right thing to do...(he probably finds it very difficult to think of anything he does as the wrong thing to do …)

Kav has deepening public trust issues. I'd think trustworthiness in SCOTUS nominee is a key factor.

The key reason to smear him is to fabricate a lack of "public trust issues" . . . to create the aura of not being trustworthy.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

even fox news polls say kavanaugh has public trust issues. lucky for him that he’s not running for office. if nothing substantial comes out that we don’t already know, i am very confident he gets confirmed. i can’t believe you feel otherwise. mitch mcconnell is nobody’s idea of a conservative warrior, but even he’s fired up. it’s going to take more to derail him i think. could come down to pence breaking a tie with one defector. mcconnell is saying very explicitly that his vote will be soon, he has no reason to say that if he doesn’t have the votes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What is really scary here is that he is not running for office, he has been nominated for a lifetime position. That should be longer than any elected position, although in the case of the Senate it doesn't seem so. Ultimately he could have more effect on our government than any elected official other than the president and for life.

[Pete F.]

Should the FBI investigate?
“It would sure clear up all the questions, wouldn’t it?”
Senator Lisa Murkowski-R

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

mitch mcconnell is nobody’s idea of a conservative warrior, but even he’s fired up. it’s going to take more to derail him i think. could come down to pence breaking a tie with one defector. mcconnell is saying very explicitly that his vote will be soon, he has no reason to say that if he doesn’t have the votes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think McConnell understands how bad it makes the GOP look when he says essentially that an accuser who has yet to be heard is irrelevant to the confirmation process. Worse, it sounds like the Senate Republicans are hiring a female attorney who specializes in sexual defending against sexual assault to perform the questioning.

Why can't they ask their own questions? (Rhetorical)

The WH should have hit the pause button immediately and let the FBI sort things out, we'd likely have moved on already. Kav going on TV last night didn't help his case much either...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Should the FBI investigate?
“It would sure clear up all the questions, wouldn’t it?”
Senator Lisa Murkowski-R

and i think she’s right, been saying that all along. Why isn’t Ford asking the MD police to investigate?? privacy isn’t an issue anymore, so if she believes what she is saying, why limit it to the political arena?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device